Mintz v. Dietz & Watson

The case of the Mintzes creating a meat casing structure that permits meat to bulge from netting is one that specifically hones in on the "hindsight" component of obviousness-identification. The court's ruling on the subject matter was aggressive compared to its more usually timid language regarding hindsight. The case went through the district court and was granted infringement ruling due to obviousness but the Federal Circuit's opinion reversed the ruling.

The opinion strongly states that the courts must avoid hindsight bias in determining obviousness. "The court needs to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight)," they state. The opinion argues that three three rigid preventative tools can be utilized to prevent hindsight:
1) "Common sense" must be articulated
2) Avoid mentioning the patent itself in describing the problem the invention solves
3) Emphasizing the objective indicia of nonobviousness

To the court, articulating common sense is explicitly defining that it is obvious to try. The court also found that when articulating the problem the patent solves becomes difficult without mentioning the patent then the problem itself might be nonobvious, making the patent valid. Lastly, objective indicia is mandatory in that we must examine the patent by turning the clock back and placing it in the context that lead to the claim.

Overall these three emphasis and the more aggressive/explicit statements are a step in the right direction that protects patents from hindsight analysis. This allows the judgment of nonobviousness to be more accurate and held at a standard across the board.



http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/mintz-v-dietz-watson-hindsight-and-common-sense.html